In this system I would designate each class to one or two of the roles "Defender, Leader, Controller, and Striker." As most classes have a main role and a secondary role. each class would be classified as both for a specific role. Example. Barbarian is a striker with a secondary role as defender.
During character creation instead of picking a specific class, the player would simple choose a role. And any power from any of the classes designated to that specific role would be available for them to choose while leveling up barring level requirements. Example. Character would pick defender, and for their two at wills they could choose Recuperating Strike from Barbarian and Cleave from Fighter since both classes are each designated Defender roles.
For class abilities (still work in progress) I was thinking of letting them choose any two (maybe three) class abilities from the classes available to them. Or assigning each ability 1 or 2 "points" and giving them 3 or 4 "points"
As for Paragon Paths and Epic Destiny. A character just has to meet the requirements of the specific path or destiny. For those that have class requirements, we were thinking maybe having one or two powers from that class qualifies them for the path or destiny.
Feats with class requirement were also a concern. Any feat that requires a specific class ability would still require that specific ability. Example if a character chose Striker and chose a Warlock power and wanted to gain the Accursed Coordination feat, which requires a Warlock's Curse ability. If the character didn't have Warlock's Curse ability the character could not take Accursed Coordination.
However Feats that only require the class, if the class is designated under the role you took, you would be able to take the feat. Example Accurate Magic Weapon requires Artificer as a class because it directly affects Artificer's powers. Artificer would be designated as a Leader/Controller. Any character that chose Leader or Controller as their role could take Accurate Magic Weapon feat, but if they didn't have any Artificer's powers then it would do them no good.
Skills we decided would be just 4 trained skills. HP gained per level was determined at 6 for defenders, 5 for everyone else. Surges were a bit more of a problem. We were thinking 10+Con Mod for defenders (like a Paladin) and everyone else gest 6 or 7 (not sure which) as that seems to be about the average for striker, controller, and leader roles. As for bonuses to Defense, each character can spend +2 or +1 & +1 on any NADs they wish. Proficiencies were a problem, we weren't sure how to designate proficiencies, but otherwise we think we covered everything for character creation and leveling.
I was just wondering, what do you think? Is this destined for massive fails or is it a viable game mechanic? I really appreciate your input.
This is totally a valid way to play 4e, and people do very similar things all the time.
To help out with proficiencies, I would just say "everyone gets everything" but a more balanced approach could be to give out 3 or 4 per player and say "spend them wisely".
One thing I think you will have to do, change every power to be [Stat] vs Will/Fort/AC/Ref instead of Str/dex/con/int/wis/cha vs Will/Fort/AC/Ref. Otherwise people will only pick powers from one or two classes. Let them choose what they want to use for [stat], but make the choice permanent. I'd also change damage entries in powers to be XdY + [stat], instead of normal. I would also make them pick a secondary stat for rider effects on powers.
Because to me 4e was a classless system that someone forced into classes at the last minute because DND has always had classes.
First thing I did when opening the books was think "Hey this is totally classless, sweet. Oh wait, no it isn't. Thats awkwardly done."
I mean come on if you think PCs are troublesome now, what will they be like with no class?
I was just wondering, what do you think? Is this destined for massive fails or is it a viable game mechanic? I really appreciate your input.
It sounds remotely doable. One of the harder things is going to be deciding which features are equivalent to which. Heck, with some classes, like the Wizard, 'features' are even a little hard to pin down. Most classes have 3 features, one of which kinda stands out in power and in support of thier role, but not all follow that vague pattern.
The other issue I see is that your characters will be able to combine sources willy-nilly, which would seem to run counter to any sort of coherent character concepts.
I've often thought that it would make sense to have a 'generalist' class for each power source, who had role-neutral class features, or a selection of class features that could support any one or two roles, and, primarily, could just take powers from any class in the same source. So, for instance, you might have a 'Warrior' who can choose two of: Generic Weapon Talent, Healing Feature, Extra-damage Feature, Marking Feature, etc... He wouldn't be as good a defender as a fighter or as good a striker as a rogue, but he could generalize or be customized as desired.
I mean come on if you think PCs are troublesome now, what will they be like with no class?
That made me laugh.
Anyway, a totally classless system in fourth edition would be okay, but an idea I've always had was that it would be bad ass if you considered the power sources themselves as classes. You could mix and match the powers within your power source to create your own sort of class, but still retain your power sources' flavor.
Something to chew on, if anything.
One thing I think you will have to do, change every power to be [Stat] vs Will/Fort/AC/Ref instead of Str/dex/con/int/wis/cha vs Will/Fort/AC/Ref. Otherwise people will only pick powers from one or two classes. Let them choose what they want to use for [stat], but make the choice permanent. I'd also change damage entries in powers to be XdY + [stat], instead of normal. I would also make them pick a secondary stat for rider effects on powers.
I really like that idea. So people don't have to worry about oh I don't have the right stat to take this power.
I know this will end in me getting flamed, but if you want to play a classless system, why don't you play a classless system? There's plenty out there. It works a lot better then purchasing various books and then completely brutalising their content. It's a lot cheaper to either just make stuff up or buy a system that does what you want...
I don't think flaming is necessary, I just don't agree. I already have the books, and brutalising their content is what D&D is based on. I don't believe making a classless system is any more brutalising the content than making a homebrew world. I am a customizing RPGer. I don't play published adventures, I pick out pieces and parts I like and put them into my worlds. If I wanted to play a structured system with a structured storyline that changes very little from player actions, I'll go buy any number of RPG video games out there and play them (which I do) But I don't want my tabletop to be as limited as a video game, and I make sure that it isn't.
If I wanted to play a structured system with a structured storyline that changes very little from player actions, I'll go buy any number of RPG video games out there and play them.
This has absolutly nothing to do with the system being class based. Classes don't force a "structured storyline" nor does it cause the story to be "chang[ed] very little from player actions". That's solely in the hands of the DM. This is just sort of a nonsensical jab at a style you don't like.
Also, look at the hybrid rules. As I recall, they split up class features and allow you to choose a selection of them in the same way you seem to want. Just allow them to be chosen from any class and loosen up the restrictions on powers.
If I wanted to play a structured system with a structured storyline that changes very little from player actions, I'll go buy any number of RPG video games out there and play them.
This has absolutly nothing to do with the system being class based. Classes don't force a "structured storyline" nor does it cause the story to be "chang[ed] very little from player actions". That's solely in the hands of the DM. This is just sort of a nonsensical jab at a style you don't like.
I didn't say classes force a structured story. I said I see "brutalising book content" by making a classless system is the same as "brutalising book content" by making a homebrew world and story.
I did NOT say that a classless system directly effects story in any way. I agree with you, story is solely in the hands of the DM. I wasn't making any sort of nonsensical jab at anything I was making a direct comparison in relation to the previous poster's comment about brutalising book content.
I think you could make it happen with Essentials, but the pre-essentials 4E really is essentially classless. It was one of my complaints when it came out...the classes all read pretty much the same (though they often play differently).
That's the whole point of our classless system though is to create any sort of character concept you want. A ninja with sorcerer abilities? You got it. a plate wearing battle wizard? No problem. A warlock/cleric? Hell yes. We wanted to do this so you could mix and match to your heart's content.
Rogue/Sorceror, Paladin/Wizard and Warlock/Cleric hybrid, respectively. These aren't nearly unique enough to warrant needing a classless system
The Hybrid system exists specifically to allow you to make characters that have stuff from multiple classes.I'm optimistic for you lol good luck
Some time ago, Malkiri made a classless system: you might want to check out here.